Talk:damnedests

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

damnedests

No Google Scholar hits; one relevant Google Groups hit; at most two bgc hits (but I didn't check them to make sure they're real).—msh210℠ 22:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be really surprised if there were a plural form at all, since this originates as a substantive use of a superlative adjective. --EncycloPetey 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need three citations for each inflected form (in English) of a word (or phrase!) for which we have an entry? If the lemmaone inflected form were cited, wouldn't one cite for each inflected form be sufficient? DCDuring 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-read WT:CFI. You only need one citation if the source of the citation is "a well-known work" (e.g. Shakespeare, Milton, Austen, Dickens, etc.) or is "a refereed academic journal". Three citations otherwise. One citation shows the form exists, but for inflected forms it won't be helpful to demonstrate that it is a standard form, which can be an issue for plurals or comparatives. --EncycloPetey 23:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't RFV most regular plurals. But this sounded very wrong to my ears and, on checking (as I noted above), it didn't seem to exist, so I RFVed it. Perhaps the fact EP mentions (that it was originally the substantive use of a superlative adjective) is why is sounded odd to me; I don't know. In any event, I think that that fact is enough of a reason to demand three citations.—msh210℠ 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I added this entry. I could be wrong. But "damnedest" sounds plurable to me, in the sense of "best efforts" (vs. "best effort") as opposed to just "best". Cheers! bd2412 T 18:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The word (deprecated template usage) best is a good point for comparison. You can talk about "the best in the field" but not "the bests". Likewise, you can "give your best" ("noun" use of best), but they can't "give their bests". Superlative adjectives used as substantives generally cannot be made plural. --EncycloPetey 20:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you can say both "They did their best." and "They did their bests." I am a bit more sure that I have heard "They each did their bests." I am a bit surer yet that you could say "They each exceeded their personal bests." I am very sure that I would rather say "Each did his best.", but the anti-genderist push would discourage "his". DCDuring 19:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

General English grammar insists that adjectives do NOT have plural forms. What happens in the case of the best is that the noun normally suffers an ellipsis in phrases such as "the best (physicist) in the field" and "give your best (effort)". Similarly in "They each exceeded their personal bests." where best really is a noun, or "They each exceeded their personal best (efforts)." OTOH do one's best is a set phrase which assumes that best is an adjective followed by an ellipsed noun. damnedest is similarly an adjective, that may sometimes be followed by an assumed ellipsed noun. - Algrif 11:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)